AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

bogus claim in the return filed. However, the question\nto be considered was whether the assessee could be the beneficiary of its own\nfraud or mistake and whether the Assessing Officer was prevented from correcting\nthe same under section 147. It was to be noted that the Explanation to section\n147(2) specifically provides that the excessive relief granted under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

2 and others-JP-2025\nDCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others\nassessee one of the member of \"Dewan Group had claimed Long Term\nCapital Gain u/s 10(38) of Act for an amount of Rs.40,15,061.29.\nLd. AO went on examination that various persons of \"Dewan Group\"\nhad initially purchased the shares of M/s. Anax Com Trade

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ANIMESH AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\n\nHe also

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, circle-1, Jaipur. 2 Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred seriously on facts in sustaining the action of the ld. AO in considering purchases

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

2 Through this ground, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 8,77,442/- being 25 percent of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.35,09,770/- made from 3 parties alleged to be controlled by Bhanwar Lal Jain group of Mumbai. In the appellant's case, as per information from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai, a search and seizure action under section

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “Act”] by ITO, Ward 3(2), Jaipur [ for short AO]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of ₹44,61,000/- made by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 & 147 rws 144B of the 2 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya Income Tax Act, by ITO, Ward 1 (2) and the National Faceless Assessment Unit respectively. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure of dispute. Thus, these appeals were heard